![[Prophet - Brand, Marketing, Innovation, and Design Experts]](/images/layout/logo88.png){kind=logo}
Is “No Tax Cuts for Millionaires” the worst slogan ever?
George Lakoff is an academic linguist from UC Berkeley who has incredible insights on brands and brand building. He has noted that winning the framing war with respect to a brand, object, or issue will dictate perceptions, attitudes and behavior no matter what the logic and evidence may say. People develop frames or perspectives that are not affected by rational information processing. His ideas are best summarized in the delightful book “Don’t Think of an Elephant.”
Lakoff's primary turf is political thinking and, while he is a Democrat, the party affiliation does not affect his logic or what we can learn from it. He argues that Republicans are geniuses at framing and as a result win most of the arguments, while "clueless Democrats" still think that rational thinking will carry the day. Republicans have framed discussions with terms like death taxes, partial-birth abortion, and tax relief. When their frame is accepted, the argument is over.
Consider the difference in perspectives on taxation created by a phrase that frames the discussion. “Tax relief” engenders the metaphor of a hero who is relieving people of a burden with tax cuts. “Tax as investment in the future” produces the image of roads built, children educated, and a defense force enhanced. “Tax as dues” is a metaphor associated with paying your fair share for services benefiting you and others like you. Each frame influences the discourse by implicitly altering the objectives. Republicans have made “tax relief” the winner.
Lakoff argues that there are two keys to winning the argument. First, frame the discussion by finding the right metaphor and supporting vocabulary or phrase that drives the metaphor home. Second, be persistent and disciplined about always using the metaphor over years and decades. Let nobody waver from it. Republicans have for at least three decades consistently talked about tax relief and the importance of stopping the government from taking hard earned money away via taxation only to waste it on inefficient programs.
Turn to the slogan “no tax cuts for millionaires.” The slogan activates the Republican metaphor through the phrase tax cuts. It is like Nixon saying “I am not a crook” and thereby activating the “crook” metaphor. It adopts the metaphor of the Republicans which amounts to surrender.
The concept of framing and supporting metaphors and vocabulary is a key to branding. Get the framing right and the brand will thrive. Framing matters. People prefer 75% lean to 25% fat. A firm that is framed as non-profit because of an .org suffix will be perceived as more caring but less competent than a firm with a .com suffix. It matters whether you are buying an energy bar for athletes, an energy bar for office works, an energy bar for women, a nutrition bar, a breakfast bar, a protein bar, or a diet bar. It matters that a the role of a detergent is framed as getting colors bright rather than saving water. It really matters. It affects the information processed, the evaluation of a brand, the purchase decision, and the usage experience. People do not take the time or trouble to analyze information in a rational way, they go with the frame and its metaphor.
So when building a brand instead of arguing about the superiority of the brand, rather, focus on framing the discussion so that competitor’s arguments are not even relevant
Posted December 14, 2010 / Permalink
/ Subscribe (e-mail)
/ Subscribe (RSS)
Tags:
framing
george lakoff
Share •
Comments
The concept of selecting the vocabulary for a category, a brand, or an issue and then relentlessly sticking to it is so relevant to brand builders and provides a very different perspective on positioning. It is puzzling why Democrats just don't get it despite the obvious evidence and the visibility of Lakoff's ideas in that arena.
This article of reminds me of the presidential campaign of Mr Mubarak of Egypt as his campaign is and has been always, along his 3 decades presidency, associated with the framing of "Supporting Those Whose Income Is Limited", which to my mind's eye doesn't reflect the poor, impoverished, or even those less advantaged people more than just people who have already been privileged with some potentials. To the otherwise, people now are unable to distinguish "who is who" with regards to Limitedness of Income, as every and each one might be limited with income; but how limited? this is the question! Thank you, Walid
Interesting. At least his slogan was positive. Also, just as many in this country aspire to be millionaires, so that term has less pejorative implications than Democrats hope for. The term “limited” may be aspirational for those with less. Dave
In terms of balance it might be worth pointing out, that on the other side of the political spectrum Frank Luntz has been very active and published books such as "Words that work" on the issue of framing and reframing issues.
But, in my personal opinion the essential issue at hand is communicative discipline. The best words and framings do nothing in a over-information world, if they are not applied with uttermost consistency (and somewhat in contrast to the Democratic "philosophy"). This consistency seems the only way left to create a meta narrative in our times and ultimately lead to a similar situation as when brand name becomes the generic description for a whole product category ("genericized trademark").
On a side note: David, I was the other day watching a record of your '09 talk at Stanford and it appeared to me that you had at the time the brand-energy concept emerging. Is there actually a book on that (in the making)?Thanks
You are right, Lakoff pointed out that discipline of message is the key to winning. I am now still involved in my Brand Relevance book and have not thought of my next one but Energy is an option. Thanks for noting the Dueling Professors talk, it was fun.
Good post. I debate often about the democrats seemingly longstanding ability to communicate core ideas. One I heard recently that has alot of resonance to me is changed worldview (A version of framing) Inthis the republicans not only frame the arguments. They also create the very premise of the debate. So the democrats have to argue that their positions are good for business, national security, and fiscal discipline, putting them in a rut to start. The democrats have tried a similar approach with attacking Wall Street, hurting the children, and corporate excess, but in the last 25 years this frame has had less resonance. Whomever wins the woldview battle seems to win the day.
I read George Lakoff's book years ago as the last presidential campaign was getting going as I have often thought the Republicans were more masterful at simplifying the message and framing the dialogue. Thank you for raising this perspective. (And it's curious that the Democrats have not been able to figure this out)
— Added by Anonymous on December 17, 2010